I have just bought a Canon 400D however I am trying to take photos with the new Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 aftermarket lens. I am having trouble getting a sharp shot even on manual focus at f8 or 11. What are you thoughts on non proprietry lenses. What would be a good lens choice for a similar lens (focal length coverage) that I can be assured of sharp shots (limitations of the photographer aside.)

From what I’ve seen while researching lenses Sigma often have a problem with Canon bodies, especially when a new model comes out as I guess Canon don’t like to share the interface info with others. Problems include not focussing properly. As your camera is the latest model I suspect that is the problem. Apparently you can sometimes get the lens “re chipped” to fix the problem.

Have you tried properly testing the lens with manual focus, on a tripod, and using a moderate aperture like f8?

Personally I feel the only good lens for a Canon is a Canon lens, even though they usually cost a lot more. The Canon equivalent to your Sigma is the EFS 17-85 4-5.6 IS, the following URLs have some reviews

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews

I haven’t read them for some time but I think the lens is pretty well regarded. This lens is not as fast as your Sigma but it has image stabilisation, which is a BIG advantage. Remember however that it is an EFS lens and as such cannot be used on a full-frame SLR.

1) How long have you been in this profession? 35 years.

2) What type of photographs do you enjoy to look at? Classic full-tone B&W landscapes, and really good wildlife shots

3) Are you familiar with Ansel Adams and do you enjoy his photography? Is this a trick question :-), yes and yes.

4) Has he influenced you to do photography in any way? His work did help to get me interested in large-format B&W landscapes.

5) Are you familiar with his zone system and do you use it? Yes and yes.

6) Have you modified his zone system technique to meet your own techniques? Yes.

7) What do you think of field & do you use it, and if so, often? Full DoF is important for landscapes, which is one reason people use large format cameras (ie by tilting the standards you can achieve sharp focus from foreground to background). This I’ve done with probably every LF B&W photo I’ve ever taken.

8) Do you follow the ideas of visualization of a photograph? Not really, I only visualise that I should be able to make a good print, not exactly how that print will look.

9) What do you believe has to be done when you visualize a photograph? Nothing, I simply try for a negative with a full range of tones, I decide how the print will look when I get in the darkroom. I see nothing to gain by making those sort of creative decisions in the field, what if you change your mind and decide to make a hi-key print when you’ve produced a thin neg because you felt at the time that the subject required a dark treatment. Get all the information on the neg, and then decide how to print it in the darkroom.

10) What are some techniques you use to take a photograph? It’s not rocket science, I Just wander around looking for good subjects. Once I’ve seen a potential subject the rest is just the mechanics of working with camera equipment.

11) Is there a certain picture print size that should be used with the zone system? Print size is irrelevant.

12) Is the Zone system better if used with color photo's or black and white photo's? It was designed for B&W, some of the principles are applicable to colour (eg the exposure) but the processing half is just as important and not applicable to colour. If you can’t adjust the neg density with processing you are not using ZS techniques.

13) Should a person use zoom when taking a picture? Or does the zoom quality make the picture too flat? Traditionally zooms have not been as sharp or as contrasty as prime lenses, this is still the case, however modern zooms (the good ones) are so good that I don’t think it matters much any more.

Your equipment seems just fine for the moment, until you decide exactly what field you want to get into. If it’s weddings, then buy a second body and two flashes; never do a wedding without a backup.

With digital I use the same principals as I did with film, ie. capture all the information possible while in the field, then decide what to do with it later in the dark (or light) room. In other words, I always capture full colour and tone info in the field. It’s way more powerful to convert to B&W later in photoshop et al. For example you can “apply” a red filter to the sky and part of the foreground, and a blue filter to the rest of the image.

For the last couple of years I was shooting large format B&W landscapes I used colour film, even though I was in the business of producing B&W prints.

I no longer use double darks, but don’t see why they could not still be used. I screwed the screws back into the wood of the glass frame, in case I need them in future.

The story used to be something like this.

In general crowd scenes and photos taken in public places are OK. However, if an individual is recognisable, the photo cannot be used for a commercial purpose without a signed model release. IE. your shot can be printed, but only in an editorial context, say in a story about boating you could use a shot that depicted a recognisable boat and skipper. But the same shot could not be used to advertise, or imply an endorsement of, anything, without the release.

Most stock libraries require releases for this reason, advertising shots demand a LOT more dollars for their use.

The same applies to objects, a photo of someone's house would require a property release if used to promote something commercially.

I hope this helps. I'm sure the AIPP and ACMP would have the proper spiel on this. I'm also sure that they both have web sites, but I don't know the URLs.

When did you choose photography as your main means of expression and when did you start working with images?

In 1972 (aged 18) I was passing through Panama and purchased a Praktica Super TL to take photos of my trip. Within a month I was buying lenses and accessories, I was no longer interested in just recording my journey, the taking of photos had become the reason for the journey. On my return to Australia later that year I got a job in photography.

Do you prefer using a traditional camera or a digital one?

I would prefer to use digital, but the good ones aren't cheap enough, and the cheap ones aren't good enough. For my large format work digital is still not an option, but I'm getting very close to going digital for 35mm subjects such as wildlife.

We ask it to all our photographer guest artists, which are the pros and cons of using a digital camera and a reflex? Which are the main differences between the two in your opinion?

For small format, apart from expense, I can see no reason to hang onto film, especially for someone like me who works in the field constantly. There are still some issues with digital, for example, wide angle lenses and batteries. I recently spent two weeks in the wilderness with not a power point in sight, no problem for a film camera, probably a drama for digital, but maybe OK with enough spare batteries.

The wide-angle lens problem is finally being addressed by manufacturers.

For the most part the quoted advantage of digital, that of being able to review a photo to see if you "got it", I don't find to be of any real importance, it's nice to satisfy one's curiosity, but a good photographer should know if he captured the photo or not. The exception to this is with fast action subjects like wildlife.

One real advantage to digital is the option to upload and catalogue the images every night while the information is still fresh in my mind, rather than have to do 1000 at once a month later when the film is processed.

For prolonged periods overseas I think digital wins as well. You can mail home CDs with the raw photos as a backup, and there's no problems with film fogging in x-ray machines at airports. It's no fun trying to convince a machinegun-toting border guard to hand search you camera case, I know, I've tried.

The only disadvantage I can see to digital is the complexity of the technology, you need computers, digital wallets, CF card readers etc., not always practical in the field.

Have you ever tried other forms of art in your life?

No.

I read in your biography you have been a darkroom technician, what did that experience teach you?

I worked in London and Canberra as a darkroom technician. The London job was very technical, involving stripping of line and tone negs with high accuracy, whereas in Canberra it was often "do 300 8x6s from this neg by lunch time". The end result was a solid technical base from which to work, years later, in my own darkroom making fine prints..

Do you elaborate and retouch your photos, either traditionally or digitally and if so, which darkroom and/or digital techniques do you use?

In my darkroom days I treated the negative as just the raw material, from which the final product (the print) will be produced . I used most of the usual techniques such as burning, contrast dodging, enhancing contrast with ferri etc. These days I'm half analogue, half digital, which is to say that I still shoot film, but immediately convert it to digital by scanning as soon as it's processed. I miss the darkroom, but as I live in a truck in the middle of nowhere, this is the only way I can make it work. The scanned image is then "photoshopped" as much as necessary to obtain the look I want.

I use all the common methods such as adjustment layers, mixing channels etc. All my recent B&W photos have been shot on colour negative film then converted to mono in Photoshop, this saves a lot of decision making, like filtration choices, in the field when things are often rushed, moving it to the post processing stage when there's time to play with options.

Do you look for a certain effect and atmosphere or are they just be the result of a casual process?

I'm basically a "found object" photographer, I just wander around looking for things that are photogenic. However I am a little more structured than that, for example I may check for tomorrow's sunrise location with a compass, and return next morning, but found object is my basic modus operandi.

I don't really previsualise the print as some photographers apparently do, but I often look at a scene and say to myself "That top corner can be darkened later" or some such.

Do you have an alternate favourite subject than nature?

I really like environmental portraits, and even had the provisional nod from a publisher to do a book along those lines a couple of years ago. But I find it very difficult to stick my camera in people's faces.

You have a special attitude towards Black and White photography, can you tell us why?

When I started working in photography B&W was still the norm for reportage and indeed most photography, I could also process and print my own B&W films at work, so B&W just became the way I saw things.

It grew from that though. I now use B&W when I want to impart the "mood" of a scene to the viewer, rather that the "look" of a scene.

Are there photographers and other artists inspiring you?

Well there's the obvious choices for someone into B&W landscapes, like Ansel Adams, John Sexton, Bruce Barnbaum et al. I also like what Dan Burkholder and Jerry Uelsmann do with manipulated images.

From the non-photographic fraternity I love Escher's scenes, and have just created my first such image photographically, a set of impossible steps that appear to flip from going up, to going down, half way through the photo.

Where does your inspiration come from?

From my subjects I guess, I see something that looks good and I want to photograph it. I just love the whole process of capturing an instant of time, something that was often just there for my eyes, then transforming that instant into a silver halide print, or a jpeg on a computer screen, something that everyone can see.

Is there something you want to communicate through your photos either overtly or covertly?

One of my best photos is of a waterfall pouring through a hole in the roof of a cave. Some time ago I received an email from a fellow who's brother had died jumping through that very hole, he discovered the photo on the anniversary of his brother's death, and with the name "God's Portal" he was very moved by the image, as was I by his story.

Just maybe, every now and again, someone will look at one of my images and be moved by it, hopefully for happier reasons though.

You chose to live on the road and be as close as possible to the wildest nature. What is the most challenging aspect of this experience?

Physically the driving of the truck is quite demanding. It's a 14-tonne 6x6 ex-army vehicle with no power steering. But this is something that can be fixed with some weight training.

What does weigh on my mind is the fear of a serious breakdown. So far I've fixed things that have broken, but maybe one day I won't be able to, and you don't just call the AA from a central Australian desert.

Also, maintaining a website from the middle of nowhere can be a challenge.

Many artists like you now have websites presenting their works on virtual galleries in the Internet. What do you think about this way of presenting one's work to the public?

It's fantastic. I have photos hanging in a couple of bricks-and-mortar galleries, but my website has viewers from all over the world. I've conversed with, and sent prints to, people from Alaska to Algeria. The down side of course is the limitation of current technology with regard to presentation, that won't be fixed for many years I fear.

Another good thing about having a website is that people can find you. I currently have photos being published in two books, one with an English based publisher, the other in Switzerland, neither of these publishers would have found me in a pink fit without my website.

You chose to depict the Australian landscape in your work. What does fascinate you most of that land?

To photograph something well you must know about it and have the time to study it. Naturally this is a lot easier to do in your home country or district, so I always recommend to emerging photographers that they find subjects where they live. I'm simply following my own advice.

The Australian continent has just about every kind of landscape, we've got deserts, tropical islands, mountains, and more snow than Switzerland. When it's too hot you can move to the southern areas, and in the winter head back north. It's safe to camp just about anywhere there's a landscape to photograph, and you can easily find places with no people.

The Australian landscape fascinates me because it's in front of my camera, if I was in Bolivia or Bulgaria I'm sure I'd be just as fascinated by the landscape there.

We are getting the most frightening alarms from the state of our environments. The weather is changing dramatically, water supply will be a big problem in the future and so on.
What do you think we should do actively to protect our environment?

Of course Australians are no stranger to water shortage, and yet I still see people trying to maintain a European-style garden by soaking the yard with water every day. In many areas of Australia there are restrictions in place, to the extent that it's often illegal to wash a car or use a sprinkler.

We carry 700 litres of water in the truck and can make it last a heck of a long time, most households use that per day. We also run entirely in solar power, and have become very frugal with our electricity usage. Some examples of how we save resources are, we don't leave a light on that's not being used, we don't open the fridge and stand looking at the contents while all the cold air pours out, we turn the tap off while soaping up in the shower. We do all this because we're not connected to any utilities, but really everyone could do the same.

Manufacturers aren't helping, with the current trend for appliances not to have a real "Off" button, just a standby mode. I can't remember the figures off the top of my head, but this small "feature" alone uses megawatts of electricity which has to come from somewhere, often as not from a new dam that's flooding an irreplaceable piece of wilderness.

We can also stop consuming at the rate we do, you don't need three TVs, huge houses, new cars.

The fact is that if there was only 3 million people in the world none of the above would matter, but there's 6 billion, and most of those people see our western lifestyle and want the same. That's fair enough, who wouldn't the way we flaunt it, but I'm convinced it will be the end of the Earth as we know it.

Unfortunately I don't think there's enough people who care to make a difference. I see no answer to the problem, short of mass sterilisation, or another meteor strike…well you did ask :-)

Are there other places in the world you would like to visit and photograph?

Everywhere, but Antarctica and the sub Antarctic islands like Macquarie and South Georgia are high on the list, mostly for the amazing wildlife. Also the USA, UK and Europe, I've spent time there in the past, and hope to return soon.

What are your future projects?

My photography seems to be veering away from the large format landscape genre and back to a more "nature" orientation, ie. plants and wildlife as well as scenics. So I guess one of my future projects is to build up a body of work along those lines.

I'm also playing a lot with computer manipulated images, I'm still not sure if this will become a serious pursuit, but I am liking some of the results, for example the Escher-like steps I mentioned before.

If you were to list the most important values in your life at present, which would be at first place? Are they the same as when you were younger?

When I was young I wanted to be a famous photographer, I wanted to be rich, and I wanted to be good looking. It's probably fair to say that I didn't make it on all three counts.

Now I'm really more interested in enjoying my photography, I can afford to photograph what interests me and no longer have the pressure to earn a living. I still sell my photos, and get a real kick out of that, but I only sell what I created in the first place because I wanted to, not because I was told to.

That's a lot of freedom, it took me years to achieve it, and it's important that I don't squander the opportunity.

What is your biggest fear these days? And what makes you happy anyway?

Engine failure in the middle of the Simpson Desert :-).

The other day I spent a couple of hours on my knees photographing kelp and the bugs that live in it. I came away soaking wet and smelling of rotting seaweed, then sat on the deck of our motorhome with a beer as the sun set. As they say in the classics, it doesn't get any better than that.

1. Take photos of non-famous people getting married.
   
2. Take photos of famous people getting married
3. Take photos of famous people doing anything.
4. Take photos of famous people doing nothing.
5. Sell your camera equipment.

After going through most of your essay's which I found most interesting I was wondering if there was a chance I could get any additional information about you and how you started your carrier into photography, what paths you took
to get to your current position.
I originally got interested in photography after buying my first SLR (a Practika Super TL) in Panama in 1972. But it wasn't a "career" until 1973 when I got sick of freezing my bum off working as an apprentice carpenter in Canberra, and found a job in a nice warm dark room.

After that I travelled around the world and Aus working as much as possible in photographic trades but also in all sorts of other jobs, like plumber, barman, green keeper, you name it.

Mostly I just loved taking photographs and didn't make many big decisions regarding a career. However in 1981 I decided to leave photography as a profession and I moved into computing.

Twelve years later (1993) I returned to photography part time and opened a small gallery/shop at the markets. This worked well but I kept the day job as there's very little money in landscape photography.

In 1997 I decided that I was sick of computing and wanted to return to photography full time. Fortunately we had done well with the computers so I quit my job, built a large motorhome and hit the road.

These days I photograph just about every day and sell prints on my web site. There's still very little money to be earned in landscape photography (did I mention that :-) but then I don't need much.

If I remember correctly I also had the Doran tank and I have since learned that it's basically impossible to get even development with them.

I built my own "dip-n-dunk" tanks, briefly as follows.

A set of 4 tanks, about 5" square. Just have some perspex cut and glue the pieces together. I forget the type of perspex but presumably you could get advice from a plastics shop. And use the type of glue that actually molecularly bonds the pieces.

These tanks are for dev, stop, fix and wash.

Then I made a hanger for the film. Four pieces of clear perspex, two longer than the other two and also long enough to protrude from the tanks.

On the two short pieces I cut ten slots, then glued the four pieces to form a "box" with open ends. This holds the film and of course must be able to fit into the tanks. I also discovered that ten slots was too many as it made the sheets too close together and they would touch. I used every second slot and therefore could only process 6 sheets at once I think. Instead of cutting slots which requires a table saw, they could be formed by gluing strips of perspex.

This is not a daylight system, everything has to be done in the dark. There are two problems here, loading and timing.

To load the film I cut a piece of cardboard to the same width and slightly longer than a sheet of film. I would insert this in a slot first, use it as a guide to insert the film, then move it to the next slot.

For timing I bought a $10 tape recorder and made three tapes, N, N- and N+, in which I say things like "1 minute", "1 minute 30" (for agitation), "into the stop", "into the fix", etc.

I found this to be far more reliable than clock watching and would now use a tape regardless of whether I could see a clock. The reason is that once you select the correct tape (done when you're calm, with the lights on, and before you start) you just have to follow orders. There's no getting to 5 minutes and then panicking because you can't remember if this is an N or N+ dev etc.

I also made a lid that would fit entirely over a tank and allow me to turn a low-intensity light on if necessary.

I also pre-soaked the film for about a minute before the dev.

A friend of mine made a similar system later with an improvement or two as I recall. I think he used to have a description on his web site (www.davidhoulder.com), drop in and have a look. Unlike me, he may still have some drawings which would make things a lot easier.

I used the above system for several years with NO unevenness in the negatives, it was a bloody revelation after my daylight tank, I could photograph skies again :-).

I'd rather chew my own arm off!

I've sold my 690 because I decided to reduce the amount of gear I own.

I didn't use it much, mostly because I am an SLR and large format user and find a rangefinder difficult to use. If you like RF cameras then this won't be a problem.

Good points
Great big negs
Quiet
Simple
Flash sync on all speeds

Bad points
Only one lens (may be a good point because it'll save you money)
Lenshood almost useless and you can't use another because the fitted one must be moved forward to reveal the lens settings. Many people actually cut the hood off.

The Mamiya 7 has a meter and interchangeable lenses which is nice but the lenses cost a fortune.

As for external metering, I'm used to using a Pentax spot meter with my LF camera so this is not much different for me. It would depend on the type of work you do, landscapes are OK with external meter, street shots maybe not but you'll soon get used to pre metering. I used the sunny 16 rule as often as not.

The technique of laying prints face down on glass used to be used to glaze prints, although I can't remember how to get them off :-)

However I assume you don't want to do this, so the easiest way to dry them is to lay them on a surface that breaths. As you don't have screens you could simply use a towel which sounds like what you're now doing. I used to do that and it worked OK.

I found that prints mostly curled on the outside couple of inches so I printed on way oversize paper to give very wide borders, thus the worst curling was on the outside which can then be trimmed.

You could easily make your own screens with some fly screen and frames or, for that matter, just buy some second-hand fly screens from household windows. You can dry the prints between two such screens (giving about a 10mm gap) which stops them from curling right up into a cylinder.

I think you'll find that FB prints will always curl but I found that letting them dry slowly (a day or so depending on the climate) on a towel worked for me.

I have a Miranda Titan TP20 tripod. Although its not that great, it only cost me £15 ($40) so I bought it. It actually does the job quite well apart from the actual composing of an image. The actual head is rubbish. It's awkward to level the horizontal, and the vertical even more so. What's most annoying is when using my 70-200mm lens (I have a 35mm camera). I tilt it upwards to get the right composition, then tighten the vertical lever (or whatever that handle is called) then when I let go the camera sinks slightly (quite a bit actually). Although I can 'predict' the tilt-drop and therefore tilt it more to compensate, it NEVER results in the composition that I want.
Anyway, I'm sure you can see what I mean. Would you therefore be able to advise me on what to do? I was thinking of a ball & socket head or something, but I have no idea what I would be buying and if it would fit onto my existing tripod. Let alone whether it would support my 70-210mm f4 lens.

Any response would be greatly appreciated.

PS what 35mm b&w film would you recommend?

I've used ball and socket heads for years and far prefer them to pan-tilt heads. You can easily buy one large enough to handle your lens and I'm sure any head will fit your tripod as they usually handle the standard 1/4" and 3/8" threads (sometimes with adapters). Some larger tripods only have a 3/8" screw and as such will not work with a small head but the reverse is not usually a problem, ie. small tripod, large head.

Most larger lenses have tripod mounts on the lens precisely because of this problem.

I have a small Benbo B&S head and a large Slik Pro head. I'm sure the Slik SPBH would do the job but I guess you'll have to find a camera shop that keeps the heads in stock so you can try them out. You'll probably have to find a pro shop.

As for B&W film, I used to use TMAX, it's an outstanding film but a little sensitive to correct development so if you're doing your own processing and are new to it then try FP4, it's much more forgiving. Ilford Delta is also supposed to be a great film but I've never used it.

The quality is amazing and I am sure a lot of it is due to the large format camera. I use a (Bronica ETRSi with Delta 100 film).

If it is not too much of a cheek could you tell me the film and dev you use to get such amazingly detailed yet contrasty images. I assume you overexpose but get away with it due to the large negative.

You're right about the larger format giving better quality. There are lots of limitations with LF but for my money the results are worth it.

As for film, dev etc. I used FP4 at first but changed to Tmax developed in Tmax dev. As a rule I expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, which is the zone system in a nutshell.

My method is as follows.

Make a meter reading for the darkest part of the scene and reduce that reading by two stops, that's your exposure. Make a reading from the brightest part of the scene and record the difference (in stops) between this reading and the one from the dark part.

Then when you process the film...

If the difference is 0-3 stops develop film for longer than normal
If the difference is 4-6 stops develop film for normal
If the difference is 6+ stops develop film for shorter than normal

Changing the development time for film has almost no affect on the thin areas (shadows) and a large affect on the dense areas (highlights) so you can used this technique to adjust the contrast of a film.

Naturally this only really works with sheet film where you can process each shot individually and you also have to arrive at your own "normal" dev time which is usually a lot less than the spec sheet suggests.

Tmax works very well because it's very prone to density changes with different developments. Other modern films like Delta probably work well also, but FP4 was not so good because it hardly changes regardless of the development time. Good for beginning photographers, but not so good it your into the above technique.

e.g. Do you as a photographer need lots of storage for lighting stands, props, etc? What things are required in a dark room and would there be any machines and chemicals used outside the darkroom?
I would be grateful for any help you can give.

As for lighting etc. that would depend on the type of photography you were involved in (I don't need any because I do landscapes these days) so I'll stick with the darkroom for the moment.

Inside darkroom
Enlarger or two
Storage for boxes of paper
Storage for all manner of buckets, trays, beakers etc.
A wet bench with sinks, taps etc.
Processing trays or machine
A dry bench for general laying of prints, negs being worked on etc.
Drying cabinet for film
Drying racks for prints
All work surfaces at normal bench height, about 900mm
Positive ventilation to keep dust out
Suction ventilation over the processing trays
Walls painted white
Chemicals used...
Developer, stop bath, ridfix and fixer for film and prints
toner
wetting agent
Possible silver recovery equipment or storage for used chemicals

Outside darkroom
Mounting press
Trimmer
Matt cutter
Light table
Glazing machine
Storage for negatives and prints
Retouching desk
Chemicals used...
Retouching dyes

Naturally there is a different layout for every photographer. Some people only have an enlarger and a couple of trays in the dark and everything else outside, others have the lot inside the darkroom.

How is artistic photography different from all the other areas?
For one thing you don't have an immediate client that needs to be satisfied.
Naturally if you're trying to sell your images you still have "clients" but the feedback is not immediate, it may take you years to realise that people don't (or do) like your images.

What are it's boundaries?
None I suppose.

How much does photography mean to you?
A lot but you gotta have a life as well. I used to eat and breath photography. These days I have other interests, but photography is still the main one.

Thanks heaps for being willing to help!

plus

I have been following your site for a couple of years mainly because I like the pics and your style. Just recently I recommended your site to a friend and told him that you had a beaut downloadable file on a modified zone system. He just rang me and said that he couldn't find the download, I told him he was a silly bugger and that I would send him the direct link. Well now I can't find it. I realise that you are rebuilding the site and have other things on your mind (travelling) but do you intend to include that download in the new site?

plus

I'm a photography student in the ACT and have a friend who read an explanation of the zone system written by yourself. I've looked...but wondered if you can tell me exactly where to find it on the net??!

Ok I get the hint, I've resurrected it. Click here to download the 1.3Mb PDF.

I suppose I use a motor drive because I always have. Most of the time I find it much easier not to have to wind the film and it's faster to let the camera rewind while I get the next roll etc. However they double the size and weight of the camera and I don't use them when I take 35mm on a bushwalk.

The speed finder is the main reason I chose Canon in the first place and why I stay with them. It is replacement viewfinder that does include a meter but more importantly the following features.

It can be rotated to allow waist level viewing, for nature and wildlife I find this to be very useful as it means you can get worms-eye view shots without sticking your face in the dirt.

When photographing wildlife you can lie on the ground and comfortably look down into the viewfinder while supporting a long lens. In this position the camera in supported by the ground and you can maintain the position for ages, with a normal eye-level finder you have to form a "tripod" with your elbows and bend you neck back to see through the camera.

Also, you can see the entire image with your eye a few centimetres from the camera, very useful if you are in a situation where it's important to keep an eye on the surroundings while composing a shot. Also useful as I now wear glasses and I can leave them on as my eye doesn't have to be directly on the camera.

Another reason I stay with F1 Canons is the fact that I can afford incredibly sharp and fast lenses in the FD series (eg 300 2.8), these lenses are prohibitively expensive in the new versions. Of course there's no automation but I find auto features are actually detrimental with landscape photography.

I normally use f64 because I like the affect of long exposures (often several minutes). Millennium Dawn however was about 10 seconds as I recall.

Photos are usually taken just before and just after sunrise/set in the so-called magic hours. Millennium Dawn was taken at 7:35am which would have been an hour or so after dawn.

I used to use TMX (Tmax 100) because it is very easy to adjust contrast levels in the developer, prints were on Ilford MGIV RC paper. Fibre prints were on Seagull but that went off the market so I stopped making them.

I use the past tense for the above because I no longer have a darkroom as I live on the road in a motor home. I still plan to use film, as high quality digital is just too expensive, but will start scanning and inkjet printing very soon.